Arsinoe IV1,
daughter of Ptolemy XII2
probably by Cleopatra V3,
birthdate between 69 and 60, usually estimated between 68 and 65 but
estimated here as c. 63-614,
probably not declared coregent with Ptolemy
XIII in late 505 or
early 495.1, declared joint
ruler of Cyprus with her brother Ptolemy
XIV
by Caesar c.
Kal.-a.d. VIII Id. Nov. AUC 706 = c. 25-30 August 486,
declared queen of Egypt in opposition to Ptolemy XIII and Cleopatra
VII7
mid November AUC 706 = early September 488,
coregent with Ptolemy XIII in opposition to Cleopatra VII mid
December AUC 706 = early October 489,
captured by Julius Caesar probably a.d. VI Kal. Apr. AUC 707 = 13
January 4710, and marched in
triumph in Rome mid September AUC 708 = mid July 4611,
then exiled to Ephesus12,
possibly granted joint rule of Cyprus with Cleopatra VII by Antony
in 4413, executed by Antony
allegedly at the request of Cleopatra VII in late 4114,
probably buried in Ephesus15.

H.
Thür, JOAI 60, 43 has suggested that
the skeletal remains of a young female aristocrat found in the
Octagon tomb in Ephesus are those of Arsinoe. The skull was
photographed and measured in detail in the 1920s. It has since been
lost, but a
recent reconstruction based on the original measurements has led
the forensic anthropologist Caroline Wilkinson to conclude that,
while the skull "looked more white European" its
longheadedness "could suggest" some partly ethnic Egyptian
descent. While this is a long way from the claims of "proof"
of Egyptian ancestry which have been touted in the media, if it were
correct, and if the skull was actually that of Arsinoe, then either
the maternity suggested here for Arsinoe, or that of Cleopatra
V, or that of Ptolemy XII,
or of all of them, cannot be correct. However, the details have not
yet been published or subject to expert review. Personally I am very
doubtful of the validity of such conclusions, especially in cases of
mixed ethnic origin, the reported basis of this conclusions -- that
the skull was somewhat long-headed -- seems pretty flimsy, and, as
best I can determine, Wilkinson does not actually make the claim of
mixed ancestry attributed to her. Indeed there is evidence of
circular reasoning: the reconstruction is reportedly
partly based on "the historical background ... suggest[ing] a
mixed ancestry". Ý

Almost
all English language scholars who have commented on Arsinoe's age,
at least since E
R Bevan, The
House of Ptolemy 356,
follow him, either directly or indirectly, in estimating her age as
1-4 years younger than Cleopatra VII,
i.e. a birth year in the range 68-65. None of them cite their source,
let alone any ancient evidence for it; nor do they give any
indication of any analysis behind this estimate. The same estimate is
given by A. Bouché-Leclercq, Histoire des Lagides II
179 n. 1, who finally cites a source: M. L. Strack, Die
Dynastie der Ptolemäer
210 n. 46. Strack's argument is given below. Some
variations occur: E
R Bevan, The
House of Ptolemy 365,
alternately estimates her age at the start of the Alexandrian war as
about 15, i.e. a birth year of 63; again, no reasoning is given. E.
Ludwig, Cleopatra: The Story of a Queen, 28, makes her 13 at
the time of Cleopatra VII's
accession, i.e. a birth in c. 65. P. Green, From Alexander to Actium,
650, makes her "barely adolescent" in 58/7, implying a
birthdate in late 69 or early 68, again without explanation, but
probably by misplaced association with Cleopatra
VII, who certainly was "barely adolescent" in 58/7.

At
the other extreme, H. Thür, JOAI 60, 43 at 52 makes her 16-18
at death, i.e. born between 59 and 57, citing U. Wilcken, RE
II.1 1288, F. Stähelin, RE XI.1 753 and H. Volkmann, RE XXIII.2
1754 as making her the youngest child of Ptolemy
XII. This estimate has been the basis for comparison with the
skeletal remains found in the Octagon in Ephesus (F.
Kanz et al. (forthcoming) 216). However, none of these
authorities actually make that claim. Wilcken describes her as the
youngest daughter of Ptolemy XII.
Stähelin describes her as the younger sister of Cleopatra
VII. Volkmann lists her last among the children of Ptolemy
XII, but merely describes her as his youngest daughter. It is
true that there is no explicit statement making her older than
Ptolemy XIV, but, as discussed above, it does seem to be implied by Dio
Cassius 42.35.5. Thür's estimate places her birth as
probably during the period of
her father's exile.

In
the absence of explicit evidence one can only refine the estimate on
circumstantial grounds. She had the authority to order the execution
of the commander of the Alexandrian army Achillas in about December
48 (ps-Caesar,
Alexandrian
Wars 4,
Dio
Cassius 42.40.1), and Caesar felt it necessary to banish her
from Egypt in case she became a focus of resistance (ps-Caesar,
Alexandrian
Wars 33).
While the day-to-day leadership under her rule was exercised by the
eunuch Ganymede, she was, if this narrative is correct, an actor, not
a cipher, and therefore most likely rather older than 12 at the time.
For this reason I originally estimated her date of birth at the top
end of the possible range, i.e. about 68 or 67, making her about 19
or 20 at the time of the war. M. L. Strack, Die
Dynastie der Ptolemäer
210 n. 46, following
the same line of reasoning, felt she could not have been younger than
17 to have exercised such authority, and therefore placed her birth
between 68 and 65; this has become the standard estimate. H. Heinen, Rom
und Ägypten von
51 bis 47 v. Chr.,
107 n. 2, comments on Strack's argument that Ptolemy
XIII was also an active player in the Alexandrian war when he
was certainly only 13 or 14. On the one hand, Arsinoe is reported as
showing much more initiative than he did; on the other, one can
reasonably argue that in fact she was only and always Ganymede's puppet.

There
is one item of literary evidence in favour of a younger age which I
have previously overlooked. When the Alexandrians complained to
Caesar about her rule they described her as a girl (confectam
taedio puellae
-- ps-Caesar,
Alexandrian
Wars 23,
mistranslated as "weary of
subjection to a woman").
Although this could be a Latin translation of parqenoV,
i.e. a young unmarried woman, it is more likely to indicate that she
was still young enough to be considered a child,
which in ordinary Greek usage would make her not older than 14/15,
i.e. born no earlier than the end of 63 or the beginning of 62. In
describing her appearance in Caesar's triumph of July 46, Dio
Cassius 43.19.3 calls her a "woman" (gunh).
If one takes the chronological implications of both these
descriptions at face value, she was born between 63/2 and mid 61, and
probably closer to the earlier date, making her probably slightly
older than Ptolemy
XIIIor possibly his
twin. This matches Bevan's alternate estimate.

On
the other hand, the remark reported in ps-Caesar,
Alexandrian
Wars 23
was clearly derogatory, which might allow her to be a little older,
and Dio
Cassius 42.42.1, reporting the same story, though at greater
remove, describes the Alexandrians as being weary of "the rule
of a woman" (gunaikoV
arch).
Hence, my original estimate of a birth year of c. 67, based on the
same perception of her apparent authority as Strack's, cannot be
excluded by this literary evidence.

On
a birthdate between late 63 and mid 61, which seems to me to be the
youngest age consistent with her reported actions, she was between 20
and 22 at the time of her death in late
summer 41. H. Thür, JOAI 60, 43 has suggested
that the skeletal remains of a young female aristocrat found in the
Octagon tomb in Ephesus are those of Arsinoe. The original
examination of these remains in 1926 (H. Thür, JOAI 60, 43 at
50-51) estimated the age at death as about 20, which matches this
estimate quite well. However, a recent reexamination (F.
Kanz et al. (forthcoming) 216) estimates the age at death as
15-17 or possibly 18. Kanz does not see a problem with this because
it is consistent with the age at death of 16-18 which Thür
assigns to her. But this makes her 8-10 or 11 at the time of the
Alexandrian war, nearly 7 years earlier, which seems far too young to
me. Either the remains are not in fact those of Arsinoe, or there is
a flaw in forensic analysis of some type, or she was much more of a
figurehead than she appears to have been at the time of the war.
Unfortunately the skull has been lost, and
with it the possibility of estimating age from dental remains.

In
view of the description of Arsinoe as a "puella" at the
end of 48, I estimate her date of birth as being about 63-61. In my
opinion, the circumstantial case for the
Octagon tomb being Arsinoe's is quite reasonable, though
certainly not conclusive. This means we must consider the possibliity
that the skeleton is in fact hers. However, for reasons given above,
I think the published estimate is a couple of years too low, and that
the original estimate of c. 20 is more likely to be correct if the
skeleton is in fact Arsinoe's. Ý

[5]
The argument for a coregency on this date rests on BGU 8.1730,
a prostagma from "the king and queen" dated 23 Phaophi
year 3 that prohibits cargos of wheat and pulse from Middle Egypt
from being shipped to the delta or the Thebaid and diverting them to
Alexandria, on pain of death. The rulers to which this document
should be assigned is unclear, except that it must be one of the last
Ptolemies on paleographical grounds. It is a palimpsest above an
earlier document which W. Schubart, the editor of BGU
VIII, interpreted as naming Heliodorus, strategos of Heracleopolis in
the 20s of Ptolemy
XII. If this is correct
then, on the basis of the year 3 date, it must either be in the reign
of Berenice IV
or Ptolemy XIII. However, the
legibility of the name "Heliodorus" has been challenged by
W. Müller in a later reading (E. Bloedow, Beiträge
zur Geschichte des Ptolemaios XII 23 n.
1), so Ptolemy XII remains a theoretical possibility, depending on
the judgement of which papyrologist one is most prepared to trust.
Berenice IV is not even considered as a candidate, presumably because
such an interpretation would require that her husband Archelaus
was given priority as king, a doubtful but not impossible proposal,
though there is as yet no clear
evidence that Archelaus was ever king.

The
most benign interpretation of the prostagma is that it represents
official response to a food supply crisis in Alexandria in time of
drought (G. Hölbl, The Empire of the Ptolemies
231). If the document belongs to Ptolemy XII or even to Berenice IV,
then that is the end of the matter. However, if it belongs to Ptolemy
XIII, then the fact that it is issued in the name of the "king
and the queen" is significant, since this would be the first
time in the reign that Ptolemy XIII is clearly named first. It would
therefore represent a weakening in the power of Cleopatra
VII, which eventually led to her expulsion
from the throne. The question is when did this occur. The most
definite statement is Caesar,
Civil
Wars 3.103,
who tells us that Cleopatra was dethroned by Ptolemy XIII and
expelled from the kingdom "a few months" before the murder
of Pompey, i.e. early 48, late in year 4. Plutarch, Antony 25.3,
mentions in passing that Cleopatra VII had been the lover of Cn.
Pompey the younger, who had come to Alexandria to raise a fleet in
mid 49; but this has every appearance of being scandalous gossip.
Appian, Civil
Wars 2.71,
casually notes that Ptolemy XIII and Cleopatra VII had contributed
ships to Pompey at Pharsalus, which if correct could mean that they
were still ruling jointly in early 48.

T.
C. Skeat, JEA 48
(1962) 100, 105 n. 1, noting that Malalas 9.217 states that Ptolemy
XIII banished Cleopatra VII to the Thebaid and Malalas 9.279 states
that Caesar summoned Cleopatra VII from the Thebaid, suggests that
she first took refuge there after she left Alexandria, noting in
support the papyri dated year 1 = year 3 discussed below. This would
imply that her departure from Alexandria occurred a year earlier than
Caesar suggests, and would make the aim of this decree to cut off her
support in the chora. One can reconcile this position with Caesar's
account by noting that Caesar doesn't refer to an expulsion from
Alexandria but to an expulsion from Egypt. In other words, she may
first have fled to the Thebaid as suggested by Malalas, and then been
expelled and escaped to Palestine a year later.

If
this is correct, then the queen mentioned in the decree cannot be
Cleopatra VII, and must, by default, be Arsinoe IV. Nevertheless,
Malalas is a very late and very questionable source, and what he
actually says in 9.279, that Caesar summoned Cleopatra VII not from
Palestine but from the Thebaid, is certainly wrong.

M.
Grant, Cleopatra
51, is inclined to accept the view that the prostagma is aimed at
reducing Cleopatra's support in the chora but nevertheless proposes
that she is the queen of the document. His view is that she was out
of power but formally still in government and still in Alexandria. I
find this view hard to understand. It requires the regents of Ptolemy
XIII, believing that they have Cleopatra under control, neverthless
taking active steps in advance against the possibility that she would
escape to raise opposition in the chora. It would be far simpler,
accepting the prostagma as dating from this reign, to take the
reverse view: to interpret it as simple drought relief for
Alexandria, coincidentally at a time when Cleopatra's power has been
diminished, and to suppose that she left Alexandria at a later time,
possibly to arouse support in areas of the country which had been
penalised by the prostagma.

In
view of the doubt that the underlying document names Heliodorus, my
own inclination at this point is to assign this document to Ptolemy
XII. Ý

[5.1]
The argument for a
coregency at this time depends on a new interpretation of three
papyri dated in year 1 = year 3: SB 9764
(Payni year 1 = year 3 (= June 49)), BGU 8.1839
(Mesore year 1 = ye[ar 3] (= August 49)), and SB 9065
(year 1 = year 3). SB
9065 names queen Cleopatra first; the second name is lost. The
interpretation of these dates is again controversial. T. C. Skeat, JEA 48
(1962) 100 interprets these papyri as indicating that Cleopatra
VII has taken on Ptolemy
XIV as a coruler, with a new year count, and as having
temporarily deposed Ptolemy XIII,
while retaining year 3 under her own year count. But there is no
other indication of such events. H. Heinen, Rom
und Ägypten
von 51 bis 47 v. Chr. 30ff., 185ff. and L.
M. Ricketts, BASP
16 (1979) 213, take the contrary view that they represent year 1
of an era of Ptolemy XIII equated with year 3 of the ongoing reign of
Cleopatra VII, and interpret the papyri as indicating that she had
had to subordinate herself to him as a coruler.

M.
Chauveau, Akten des 21. Internationalen
Papyrologenkongresses Berlin 1995 I 163,
168f., argues that Ptolemy XIII never changed his era, and that the
dates must therefore be read as year 1 of Cleopatra VII = year 3 of
Ptolemy XIII. As proof he notes that gr
Medinet Habu 44, naming the strategos
Pamonthes son of Monkores, is dated to 14 Thoth year 5 of king
Ptolemy and queen Cleopatra the father-loving gods; the date is
equated to the 20th day of a lunar month. This was assigned by H. J.
Thissen, ZPE 27
(1977) 181, to Ptolemy
XII and Cleopatra
V, i.e. dated to 24 September 77, but Chauveau noted that the
queen is not called Tryphaena, and that the rulers are not called
sibling-loving (Philadelphoi), as is normal for this royal couple.

Further,
the lunar date requires the lunar month to start on 30 Mesore of the
previous year. This is the case in the 9th year of the Carlsberg
cycle according to the table on A. E. Samuel, Ptolemaic
Chronology 57. Moreover, since the
equivalence is explicitly given in pCarlsberg
9, it remains true even though, as noted by A.
Jones, ZPE
119 (1997) 157, there are multiple
solutions to the pCarlsberg 9
equations. Since year 1 of a Carlsberg cycle started in AD 44, the
most recent year 9 in the Ptolemaic era is 49/8 BC, which is also
year 4 for a ruler acceding in 52/1. This equation dates the graffito
to Ptolemy XIII, i.e. 17 September 48, a date which, as Chauveau
notes, is right at the start of the Alexandrian war.

Chauveau
further identified pdemCairo
30616 a and b, dated to 13 Phamenoth year 3, as having the same royal
dating formula, and therefore reassigned them from Ptolemy
XII to Ptolemy XIII,
redating them from 23 March 78 to 15 March 49. In Chauveau's view,
this shows that Heinen and Ricketts are wrong, in that Ptolemy XIII
did not change his year count. Chauveau concluded that the year 1 =
year 3 double dates must therefore represent a year 1 of Cleopatra
VII independent of the era established in 52/1.

This
conclusion seems to me likely to be correct. It has the advantage of
assigning the era of Cleopatra as the first of the two eras, just as
she is the first of the two rulers named in SB
9065. For the same reason, another alternative suggested by B. P.
Grenfell & A. S. Hunt, New Classical
Fragments and Other Greek and Latin Papyri
63 -- that these papyri belong to an era of Archelaus
and Berenice IV
(calling herself Cleopatra) -- can be ruled out, since, if this were
correct, the "year 1" would have to belong to Archelaus.
Chauveau's proposal fits rather well with Skeat's proposed
reconstruction of the sequence of events with respect to Cleopatra,
if not with his views on Ptolemy XIV.

Regardless
of the true date of BGU 8.1730,
this scenario implies that Cleopatra VII left Alexandria before June
49, the date of SB 9764.
But her partner in the dual-dated papyri, on Chauveau's proposal,
can only be Ptolemy XIII, not Ptolemy XIV. Therefore we have to
interpret the double dates from Cleopatra's perspective, as
indicating her independence from Ptolemy XIII's regency council, but not
a rupture between Cleopatra and Ptolemy XIII himself. This would also
fit the evidence of pOxy 19.2222,
a fragmentary kinglist, which says that Ptolemy the brother of
Cleopatra (i.e. Ptolemy XIII) reigned together with Cleopatra for 3
years and alone for 1.

Howrever,
it is unlikely that this view was reciprocated by Ptolemy XIII's
regency council. Certainly by July 48, in late year 4, the two sides
had been at war for some months, with Cleopatra VII expelled from the
country. In these circumstances, the "queen Cleopatra
Philopator" of gr Medinet Habu
44 could only be Cleopatra VII if the graffito actually reflects news
of the Caesarian settlement. Otherwise, she can only
be Arsinoe IV. The most likely moment for Arsinoe's installation, on
this interpretation, would be at the time that Cleopatra VII left
Alexandria, presumably (on this reconstruction) in early 49.

There
is one piece of evidence against this proposal: Strabo
17.1.11, who says that Cleopatra went to Syria with her sister,
i.e. Arsinoe IV. However, we do not know when Arsinoe IV returned to
Alexandria. In view of the apparent difficulty Cleopatra had in
returning with safety, it appears that she returned alone. But she is
unlikely to have left Arsinoe IV alone with her army, so it would
appear that Arsinoe IV had returned earlier, possibly in order to
become Ptolemy's queen, or that Strabo was in error. Alternatively,
the "queen Cleopatra Philopator" of the graffito could be a
placeholder for a queenship that was, at that instant in time, in
fact vacant.

There
is perhaps one additional piece of evidence. Caesar's reported decision
to award Cyprus, then a Roman province, to Ptolemy XIV and
Arsinoe IV, cannot have been in fulfilment of the will of Ptolemy XII
as Caesar claimed. It is much easier to understand if he did so to
compensate the two, particularly Arsinoe IV, for loss of position in
Egypt, i.e. for replacing her as queen by reinstating Cleopatra VII.

Having
laid out out this argument, however, my inclination is to interpret gr
Medinet Habu 44 as reflecting the
Caesarian setlement, and therefore not as an indication of a
coregency for Arsinoe IV. Ý

[6]Dio
Cassius 42.35. Caesar
does not mention the award of Cyprus, and the accuracy of the report
has been doubted, e.g. A. Bouché-Leclercq, Histoire
des Lagides, II 193 n. 1. But Cleopatra
VII was certainly in possession of it in
43, so Caesar must have transferred it back to Egypt at some point,
and the story seems an odd one for Dio to invent. For the date, see
discussion under Ptolemy XIII. Ý

[8]
The date is estimated by dead reckoning. The two bounds are the
settlement of Caesar probably at the start of November and the arrival
of the 37th legion probably at the start of December. In this
time, the forces of Achillas arrived in Alexandria to place Caesar
under siege; Arsinoe IV escaped to them with her tutor Ganymede and
was recognised as the leader of the army if not queen;
Arsinoe and Achillas began to contend for control and each made at
least one distribution of money to the troops; Arsinoe had Achillas
executed and Ganymede placed in command; and Ganymede was able to
poison the water supply of Caesar's forces. This last must have taken
a while, so Arsinoe's escape should be placed near the start of the
period, c. Non - a.d. IV Id. Nov. Ý

[9]
For the release of Ptolemy XIII to
Egyptian forces see Dio
Cassius 42.42; pseudo-Caesar,
Alexandrian
Wars 23-24.
Although it was said to Caesar
that the Egyptian army was fed up with being ruled by a girl and with
the cruelty of Ganymede, there is no particular reason to believe
that this was true, and no indication of conflict between them, hence
it may be assumed that she became his queen at this point. For the
date, see discussion under Ptolemy XIII.
Ý

[10]
Inferred from Caesar's
decision, given in pseudo-Caesar,
Alexandrian
Wars 33,
to exile Arsinoe IV in the settlement he imposed after defeating the
Egyptian army. Date is assumed to be the date of the battle of the
Nile in which the Egyptian army was defeated. See
discussion under Ptolemy XIII. Ý

[11]
Dio
Cassius 43.19, 43.20;
Appian, Civil
Wars 2.101-2.
She was displayed in the second of four triumphs held on separate
days, over Gaul, Egypt, Pontus and Africa. They are frequently said
to have been consecutive, but Suetonius, Caesar 37
is clear that each of these triumphs were celebrated a few days
apart. The year of the triumph is determined by context: it follows
the conclusion of Caesar's campaigns.

The
exact date is not certain. However, we may note that Dio
Cassius 43.22 states that Caesar dedicated the Temple of Venus
Genetrix immediately after his last triumph, over Africa, apparently
in the evening of that day. This event is dated to a.d. VI Kal. Oct
in the Fasti Pinciani.
Suetonius,
Augustus 8,
supports this date for the African triumph when he notes that
Augustus took part in it after taking his toga virilis, an
event that would normally have occurred on his 17th birthday, a.d. IX
Kal. Oct. A.U.C. 708. Since he apparently had no role in the earlier
triumphs, one may perhaps infer that the Pontic triumph was held on
the same day or before, and that the Egyptian triumph was held a few
days earlier.

M.
Grant, Cleopatra 85 says that the triumphs were held
between a.d. XI Kal. Oct. and Kal. Oct. 708 A.U.C. I have yet to
locate the source for this statement. It does not seem possible to
square this range with Suetonius' statement that they were held a few
days apart and with the date of the dedication of the temple of Venus Genetrix.

46
= 708 AUC was the transitional year between the old Roman calendar
and the Julian calendar. For the early Julian calendar see here.
Since 709 AUC was not accounted a leap year, September, November and
December of 708 AUC each had 29 days, and 67 intercalary days were
inserted between November and December, we arrive at the equation
Kal. Sept. 708 AUC = 29 June 46. Ý

[13]Strabo
14.6.6. This is usually regarded as an error. However, P. J.
Bicknell, Latomus 36 (1977) 325, 331 takes it seriously. He
considers that the only time Antony could have done this was in 44,
shortly after Caesar's murder. Since we know from Appian, Civil
Wars 4.61,
that Serapion, strategus of Cyprus in 43, owed allegiance to Cleopatra
VII, Bicknell proposes that Cleopatra had sent him to disposses
Arsinoe, who then fled to Ephesus where she attempted to link up with
the Republicans under Cassius, thereby explaining the notice of
Appian, Civil
Wars 5.9
that the priest of Artemis at Ephesus had greeted her as queen.
Maybe, maybe not. Ý

[14]
Josephus, Antiquities
of the Jews 15.4;
Josephus,
Contra
Apionem 2.5,
though Josephus is very hostile to Cleopatra
VII. P. Green, From
Alexander to Actium 671, argues that the
decision was Antony's
alone, based on considerations of realpolitik.
The date is determined from Appian, Civil
Wars 5.9,
who says that it followed very shortly after the meeting of Antony
and Cleopatra at Tarsus (though he also misplaces the temple in
Miletus not Ephesus). Dio
Cassius 48.24.2 also dates the event to after the meeting in
Tarsus, though curiously he says it was Cleopatra's brothers, not her
sister, who was killed. Ý

[15]
H. Thür, JOAI
60 (1990) 43, has proposed that Arsinoe IV was buried in the Octagon,
a large tomb in the centre of Ephesus which is dated to the period
c. 50-20 by the style of the decoration of the mausoleum; associated
pottery remains were dated to the 20s, indicating that the building
was completed at about that time. The grave inscription, if there was
one, has not been found, and the tomb was plundered in antiquity, but
the skeletal remains were found in the original sarcophagus and are
those of a young woman originally estimated to
be around 20 but most recently 15-17.

The
position of the tomb is very prominent, indicating that the
owner was of very high status, Evidently she was a very prominent
aristocrat of the period, and Arsinoe IV is the only one known who
was resident in Ephesus. In further support of this identification,
Thür notes that decorative
elements of the tomb such as the papyrus columns are well-known
in Alexandria, and that the octagonal form of the mausoleum recalls
what we know of the Pharos in Alexandria, a model of which was
carried in Caesar's triumph in 46.

This
identification seems quite plausible, though it is certainly not
conclusively proved. If correct, and if the skeleton is also that of
Arsinoe IV, she would be the only member of the dynasty whose remains
have survived till modern times. An examination of the skeletal
remains announced in 2009 (F.
Kanz et al. (forthcoming) 216) has led to conclusions about the age,
condition and ethnic origin of the
occupant, discussed above. Kanz also concluded that there were no
signs of violence on the skeleton. While these results do not, and
inherently cannot, prove that the occupant was Arsinoe, they appear
to be somewhat consistent with this view. However, the age
estimate seems to me to be too young, and the lack of signs of
violence, whiile not critical, is not what one would expect.
Additionally, the tomb seems to have been completed nearly two
decades after her death. None of this is decisive evidence against
the claim (indeed one might argue that the mausoleum is more likely
to have been built by Cleopatra's successful opponents than by
herself or her partner, or by the city at the time of their rule),
but the case for it is not as strong as one would like. The strongest
arguments remain the Egyptian elements of the tomb decoration and the
apparently very high status of the occupant. Ý

Update Notes:

11 Feb 2002: Added individual trees17 Feb 2002: Strengthened discussion of possible
coregencies in year 3 to make clear that I doubt it.26 Feb 2002: Split into separate entry.14 April 2002: Added Bicknell's theory of Arsinoe IV
as queen of Cyprus in 44/3.12 May 2002: Corrected Roman and Egyptian date
equations as necessary30 June 2002: Corrected Roman and Egyptian date
equations again as necessary18 May 2003: Changed Plutarch Xrefs to the Lacus
Curtius edition18 June 2003: Udated Xrefs to translations of Caesar23 Oct 2003: Added Xrefs to online translations of Appian24 Feb 2004: Added Xref to online Strabo25 June 2004: Cleaned up discussion on the date of
Caesar's Egyptian triumph25 June 2004: Separated the discussions of two
proposals for Arsinoe ruling in coregency2 Nov 2004: Downgrade judgement on coregency with
Ptolemy XIII from "possibly" to "probably not" to
avoid misinterpretation19 Jan 2005: Updated Xref on Alexandrian Wars to
ForumRomanum edition11 Mar 2005: Added Greek transcription and link to
image of pOxy 19.222228 May 2007: Added Xref to BASP paper14 Oct 2007: "Crassus" => Cassius (n. 13)
thanks to John Gilbert28 Mar 2009: Revise age estimate;
add commentary on examination of skeletal remains
and (lost) skull which may be those of Arsinoe.